Upping the ante on distracted driving

Rest assured a resolution to the conundrum of what we are allowed to do in the confines of our automobile is coming. It will pit automakers against government, the automakers against research statistics, consumers against courts and, I predict, those same automakers against those same courts.

PHOTO: Handout, Fotolia

New Jersey takes long arm of the law
New Jersey take unique approach

By David Booth, Postmedia News

Originally published: September 12, 2013

SMALL

MEDIUM

LARGE

The hubbub surrounding distracted driving is a lot like watching a Clint Eastwood western, only with the slow-motion (some would say terminal) pacing of Ishtar. You know there’s a denouement coming, that the confrontation will be ruthless, explosive and final, but, as with all the best plots in movies, you’re not quite sure what the climax might be (yes, I know that The Outlaw Jose Wales and The Good, The Bad and The Mediocre were as predictable as corruption in Quebec politics, but few can truthfully claim to have foreseen the finale in Gran Torino).

But rest assured a resolution to the conundrum of what we are allowed to do in the confines of our automobile is coming. It will pit automakers against government, the automakers against research statistics, consumers against courts and, I predict, those same automakers against those same courts. The only people who seem to want all these distractions are automakers — who are seemingly convinced that without connectivity, they will never again sell a car to Millennials — and young consumers who, especially if we’re to believe the hype, can’t seem to stand being without their Facebook fix for more than five minutes.

Despite this desire to remain constantly connected, I suspect that the battle for onboard connectivity passed a Rubicon a few weeks ago in New Jersey when, according to CNN, the New Jersey state appeals court ruled that the sender of a text message who knows the recipient is driving may be held responsible for the accident caused by their distraction. Or, as the plaintiff’s lawyer in the case described, "the sender is electronically in the car" and should be viewed as someone willfully causing a distraction.

Although the ruling is fairly narrow (and, indeed, the defendant in this particular case was found not guilty), it does point it how fed up some jurisdictions are with distracted driving (New Jersey also has proposed legislation that would allow police to scour cellphones looking for texts without warrants if an accident has occurred). Though many states and provinces have laws forbidding texting and calling while driving, a few have gone beyond those enacting anti-distraction laws. In Alberta, for instance, it is a $172 fine to enter destination information into an on-board GPS system (as well as applying makeup or reading any printed material) while driving.

American courts have seemingly taken on this battle because its government agencies have dragged their feet on making rules specific to distracting technologies. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently published guidelines for automakers relating to distracted driving, but adherence is, so far, voluntary. According to Car & Driver, the NHTSA is contemplating making rules that will determine what technology is, and is not, allowed inside an automobile’s cabin, but those dictums are only expected in two or three years because, as our own government has also determined, progress is so rapid that administrators can’t determine what presents a distraction or how to even test the distraction. Nonetheless, it does mean that regulations are not keeping up with local laws; while Alberta prohibits keying in a destination to an on-board navigation system while driving, many automobiles currently allow you to do just that.

Nonetheless, methinks chances are very good that it will result in a ban of more than the universally derided cellphone. Indeed, while talking on cellphones is the most universally banned activity, the Canadian Automobile Association’s Distracted Driving website says talking on a cellphone only raises the possibility of being in a crash or near crash by 1.3 times (though dialling a phone number ups the ante three times). Texting, since typing requires taking your eyes off the road, is the most dangerous activity, resulting in a 23-fold likelihood of experiencing a crash or near crash.

I vividly remember Gary Magwood, former autojournalist and driving instructor extraordinaire, observing long ago (as in long before the iPhone was even a twinkle in Steve Jobs’ eyes) that the No. 1 cause of single car accidents involving sub 25-year-olds was changing a radio station. Considering that this is, or at least used to be, a matter of a simple twist of a knob, one can only imagine the distraction caused by all the electronic hijinks in, or planned for, the modern automobile. The aforementioned NHTSA guidelines recommend that no technology inside the automobile should distract the driver’s eyes from the road for more than two seconds, a limit I think already exceeded by some of the equipment we currently enjoy.

Meanwhile, automakers insist that the only way to entice the young into their wares is to wire them up to the hilt. General Motors is praising the modern 4G LTE network as a way to bring live video into the car, Consumer Reports has complained that MyFord Touch systems are too complicated and even BMW, Mercedes-Benz et al are starting to believe that the future of the automobile is as a mobile modem.

Something’s got to give. I just hope Clint’s around long enough to make a movie about it.

Will technology save us from technology?

Is the answer to too much technology simply more technology? One has to wonder whether the solution to our driving distraction is not so much to have us less distracted, but to simply take responsibility for driving out of our hands. At least a part of the impetus for self-driving cars — which Mercedes-Benz now says we will see by 2020 — is that we’re all too incompetent to be driving ourselves. In the meantime, Honda is testing updated technology that extends car-to-car accident avoidance mechanisms to pedestrians and motorcycles. Its Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) system alerts both driver and the pedestrian (via the much maligned smartphone, by the way) that an accident could occur even when the pedestrian is not readily visible to the driver (i.e. stepping of a curb behind a parked vehicle). Likewise, the company’s Vehicle-to-Motorcycle (V2M) can sense the presence of a motorcycle even when it is obstructed from the view of the driver.